Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
Very well worded, Alan. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan. I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that. Gareth On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
+1 On 21 July 2010 13:52, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- - Evan
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel?? Alan At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
On 21 July 2010 15:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
I personally most like your proposal to let individuals make their own bookings if within budget. The ICANN appointed travel agents have just blown it too many times. Also, if someone knows the're eligible to go long enough in advance, they can book the flight months ahead (not weeks), saving ICANN many hundreds of dollars in costs. The formal process is so slow to get moving, many of the low fares are gone by the time they even send out the paperwork. Another good reason for the claims approach to booking air travel is that it allows the traveller to pay for the difference if the specific itinerary they want is too far over budget. So far it's been an absolute yes/no call with the traveller not being able to "top up" the cost of a more-expensive option. I also strongly approve of your comments dissuading against use of charter/vacation airlines. I was booked on one for part of my trip to Brussels (Thomas Cook Air) and wouldn't recommend that to an enemy. As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features alone are worth it. - Evan
I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either. Gareth On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
Alan
At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Perhaps I am missing something. My proposal was that the traveller be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims. Alan At 21/07/2010 04:31 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
Alan
At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
On 21 July 2010 16:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
My proposal was that the traveler be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims.
... and that combination of suggestions was what earned my +1.
Mine, too! The option is great. Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wed 7/21/2010 5:05 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal On 21 July 2010 16:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
My proposal was that the traveler be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims.
... and that combination of suggestions was what earned my +1. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Thanks for the clarification Alan. On first reading I thought there was an option for changing the per diem arrangements. I would prefer that the designated travel agency book the flights so as to remove the need for reimbursement, but I like your suggestion for allowing more flexibility to allow the traveller more input into the arrangements. If we can find a cheaper option early in the process, so much the better. Gareth On 2010-07-21, at 1:53 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Perhaps I am missing something. My proposal was that the traveller be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims.
Alan
At 21/07/2010 04:31 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
Alan
At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
I would like to step in to share perspectives and recommendations as a person who travels from the developing world. I was hoping more of the participants from such regions would also do so because they also share many of the troubles as mine. First and foremost, it is very hard to pay for air-ticket bookings on our own and secondly the per-diem facilitates a great deal of us to manage the on-ground expenses during meetings. On various occasions other than ICANN, I have been compelled to cancel certain engagements because the tickets weren't facilitated before-hand by the hosts. When I arrived in Brussels on the 18th, I had overlooked the hotel booking that said it was from the 19th. Funny because the Air-Ticket and Hotel were both booked by the same travel team. Lacking the amount of one night's hotel expense and a credit card that leaves my side at the nick of time (Pakistani credit cards are like that, they don't work when you need them to), I almost thought of myself to be out on the street or maybe finding my way to some Youth Hostel far away if i could find it or trying to convince one of you folks to let me spend the night on the couch in your rooms which wouldn't have been convenient either. Okay, I had an advantage of wits and lively communication that worked well convincing the ladies at the reception that the highest order in ICANN will be soon in touch with them on the issue but I almost freaked out!!!!! Okay, people may be in better positions than mine but hey....I hope you understand. Travel policy recommendations should not be just from the perspective of the developed regions but should be accommodating volunteer travellers from developing regions. Let me also share another example, if we take note of say the cost of accommodating a developing region participant, many of us may be surprised to learn that the cost of his participation in one meeting may actually be equal to his 6 or 9 month income (based on situation in the best income earning scenario) My recommendations: 1. Volunteer travellers from developing/low-income/least developing regions should continue to receive advance ticketing but with improvements in flight bookings. Recommendation 1: ICANN Travel Policy Exceptions for Travellers from Developing Regions. 2. ICANN should maintain a Diary of Allowed Travel Routes for Developing Region Travellers. One or two meetings should be sufficient to do so. For example, for Brussels meeting, I was twice sent a proposed itinerary that was forcing me to go through Heathrow whereas residents of my country are not allowed transit through UK without following the prior 6 month long duration transit visa acquisition application submission process and it took me quite some time to get the message through. I do have allowance to travel through EU. Interestingly, I could still fly direct to Brussels cheaper on middle eastern airline carriers that flew direct from my city of Lahore, Pakistan and ICANN got it right in the end though but it does get overly time consuming and considerable tension goes in to it as we stay uncertain whether we will make it or not. Recommendation 2: Diary of Allowed Travel Routes for Developing Region Travellers. 3. Issue 2 also implies that when we travel, we have to reschedule/allocate a lot of changes in our work plans, engagements, commitments etc and we should be on a boot-camp style or concentration camp style regime for travelling. I would like to second the issue of allowing a day before the actual meeting and would also suggest to at-least allow us to attend the board meeting that's where the crux of the whole week comes out at and missing that is like missing a major portion of what we invested our time and efforts in, unless personal requirements create the need to fly early. Recommendation 3: Improved Arrival and Departure Facilitation 4. Urgent change to allocated travel plan policies - What if an emergency comes up and one has to change or modify their travel plan - Threats - they start coming. You will pay this, you will pay that, you will pay this. Interestingly, these arguments happen over a nights stay expense or maybe a minor 50Euro investment to make the rescheduling. It feels like an important and urgent request but all hell breaks loose when replies come in mentioning, you will have to pay this and that and no this can't happen. It seems as the issue of urgency isn't being realized. We may recommend having ICANN's travel constituency to place a Travel Support desk at all meetings with staff that can take decisions especially when the CFO and ICANN staff are around the meetings to take last minute decisions in situations of urgency. Recommendation 4: Eliminate Antagonist Behaviour towards Traveller's Urgent/Unavoidable Circumstances 5. Both the organization and volunteer travellers are giving something important to each other and the role of travel and commitment by both parties are significant. Volunteers shouldn't be treated like minors undergoing air-travel and accompanied by a guardian. They should be treated equally with ICANN Staff and Board Members and thus should receive equal attention. I also reserve my right to object to the fact that I see less developing region people in the staff and board but that's not the issue at hand but it would definitely teach ICANN operations a great deal of mutual respect and better handling of everyone. Its interesting how the Board was interested in compensations to the Board but not improving the issues within ICANN participation, better developing region representation etc and that is an advantage that the Public Face of ICANN in the form of At-Large brings to ICANN. Therefore we should feel the mutual request and equal level treatment first before we say to the world that ICANN has mutual request and equal treatment/relations with all its stakeholders. Recommendation 5: Mutual Respect of all travellers including Volunteers, ICANN Staff and Board Representatives as Equal! Recommendation 6: ICANN should deploy an ICANN Travel Team Support Desk right near the registration desk at all ICANN meetings that should be operative from the day that ICANN staff or travellers arrive. Period! These were the ones that came to mind. Don't mind the details, we really do not have many outlets in such discourses. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Alan. On first reading I thought there was an option for changing the per diem arrangements.
I would prefer that the designated travel agency book the flights so as to remove the need for reimbursement, but I like your suggestion for allowing more flexibility to allow the traveller more input into the arrangements. If we can find a cheaper option early in the process, so much the better.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 1:53 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Perhaps I am missing something. My proposal was that the traveller be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims.
Alan
At 21/07/2010 04:31 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
Alan
At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
> To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > > Dear Kevin, > > At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you > confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel > support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps > most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results. > > Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and > I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to > fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may > address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary > responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers. > > In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to > make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of > constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the > benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds. > > I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am > sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process > were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in > ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which > should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the > same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, > but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to > keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial > amount of guaranteed business. > > I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per > group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss > later in this note. > > 0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever > air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board > members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers. > > 1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current > rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or > overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on > premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real > perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in > passenger comfort. > > 2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent > should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of > cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include > 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not > take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this > well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues > related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the > sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are > omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares > of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I > exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares > offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package > travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover > from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service > fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. > > 3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle > requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should > be far fewer of them. > > 4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based > on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled > meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous > messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with > such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early > enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first > meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this > may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early. > > 5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that > allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should > include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number > of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are > equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, > and volunteers should be offered no less. > > 6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above > the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for > a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher > level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average > burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues > for those travelers where business class is allowed. > > 7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at > substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or > 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket. > > 8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of > reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by > ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be > easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to > audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of > self-reservation privileges. > > 9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by > scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules > should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per > diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 > or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, > the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the > traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still > coming out ahead! > > 10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has > been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the > airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the > greater of $300 or 10%. > > 11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. > Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that > budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for > medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any > significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either > to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for > other events that support the mission of the group. For Board > members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis. > > 12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel > expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission > if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable". > > Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing > real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a > net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the > additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that > will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims. > > I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general > support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be > discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the > ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa
Hi Fouad, Most of the problems you describe are not limited to travelers from developing economies. I would really prefer not to segment the world more than is already being done; travel headaches -- such as missed check-in dates -- can happen to anyone. Bad travellers' luck does not discriminate regards to country of origin. On 21 July 2010 19:18, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote: I would like to step in to share perspectives and recommendations as a
person who travels from the developing world.
Small nit, but Pakistan is not on the UN list of lesser developed countries. Compared to the US it's way behind, but its GDP/person is more than double that of ICANN host country Kenya. Everything's relative :-) First and foremost, it is very hard to pay for air-ticket bookings on our
own
According to Alan's proposal, nothing changes for those who want to let ICANN do their bookings. The proposal merely suggests some extra flexibility for those who can (and like to) manage it. Issue 2 also implies that when we travel, we have to reschedule/allocate a
lot of changes in our work plans, engagements, commitments etc and we should be on a boot-camp style or concentration camp style regime for travelling.
Careful, some people could be very offended by that statement. If it was a true concentration camp regime you might not make it to your destination -- ever. That was an extremely poor way to make a point. As for changes in work plans, you're an ICANN volunteer leader and knew what the time demands were going to be in advance. Deal with it, just like the rest of us. Or feel free to avoid the travel, save the time and use the remote participation facilities. Sometimes those kind of conflicts happen, but that's not -- and should never be made to be -- ICANN's problem. Recommendation 4: Eliminate Antagonist Behaviour towards Traveller's
Urgent/Unavoidable Circumstances
I've always found that ICANN staff -- at this level -- are human too. They mean well, and react nicely when not yelled at. I've had and witnessed my share of panics and all have been dealt with professionally. I have never encountered what I'd considered 'antagonistic' behaviour -- there are simply too many things that can go wrong, with all travelers, to single us out for bad treatment. Recommendation 6: ICANN should deploy an ICANN Travel Team Support Desk
right near the registration desk at all ICANN meetings that should be operative from the day that ICANN staff or travelers arrive. Period!
I disagree strongly with the need for a desk. ICANN travel staff are always on-call at the conference -- on-site long before we get there -- and are easy to track down (they usually have walkie talkies and at least have their mobile phones). IMO, having a specific desk will simply irritate the many stakeholder attendees who *didn't* get their travel subsidized without really creating any extra benefit we don't already have. It also puts unreasonable mobility limits on ICANN travel staff. If there's a problem just let the nearest At-Large staffer know. That system has always worked at every conference I've attended. The only occasional difficulty requiring a travel desk has been WRT airport-to-city transfers in some locations (Delhi comes to mind) and ICANN has generally dealt with those situations as well as could be expected. Every conference has something to teach. :-) - Evan
Hi Evan, Your comments are welcome but I thought we were making recommendations and I did not particularly point out anyone's comments. The issues do stand out in terms of developing and developed classification and that should really be ignored.
Small nit, but Pakistan is not on the UN list of lesser developed countries. Compared to the US it's way behind, but its GDP/person is more than double that of ICANN host country Kenya. Everything's relative :-)
I can't seem to find where I made divisions and classifications based on a stated UN system so can't really figure this out. Within the developing world, visa acquisition and air fares are definitely a different system. GDP classification can be used as a good indicator but economic practitioners have failed miserably to show whether it reflects the true net worth or financial status of individuals. The globe should have never faced a recession since GDP's were showing remarkable growth for many countries. I wouldn't debate the issue further and would provide http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue20/Vaury20.htm for a good read :o)
According to Alan's proposal, nothing changes for those who want to let ICANN do their bookings. The proposal merely suggests some extra flexibility for those who can (and like to) manage it.
I gave a recommendation and it can be included as a recommendation from a member. I did not disqualify Alan's recommendation neither did I point it out as Alan's. It just a standard recommendation from experience.
Careful, some people could be very offended by that statement. If it was a true concentration camp regime you might not make it >> to your destination -- ever. That was an extremely poor way to make a point.
Apologies for the way I said this but I think the point has been misunderstood added with the lack of vocabulary on my part. I have no issues nor had to rethink my participation in ICANN and I do am unable to welcome this argument framed back to my individual engagement. For the record. I am 100% committed. Let me try to re-frame it - Both ICANN and the Volunteers contribute significant resources to the process and thus management of arrivals and departures should be managed in such a way that the objective of active and adequate participation has been achieved by both parties. Arrivals and departures on the traveller's consent should accommodate their participation in the final day activities such as Board Meeting.
I've always found that ICANN staff -- at this level -- are human too. They mean well, and react nicely when not yelled at. I've had and witnessed my share of panics and all have been dealt with professionally. I have never encountered what I'd considered 'antagonistic' behaviour -- there are simply too many things that can go wrong, with all travelers, to single us out for bad treatment.
We may again have different perspectives of understanding this text. Let me replace antagonistic with opposing one's real situation that is unavoidable and a solution has to be granted as required by the traveller. Again different perceptions in experiences so can't really intervene on this further.
I disagree strongly with the need for a desk. ICANN travel staff are always on-call at the conference -- on-site long before we get there -- and are easy to track down (they usually have walkie talkies and at least have their mobile phones). IMO, having a specific desk will simply irritate the many stakeholder attendees who *didn't* get their travel subsidized without really creating any extra benefit we don't already have. It also puts unreasonable mobility limits on ICANN travel staff. If there's a problem just let the nearest At-Large staffer know. That system has always worked at every conference I've attended.
I stand firmly on this recommendation for the Travel Support Desk. Btw, I get a bit discouraged with arguments and arguments on recommendations. When recommendations are requested, recommendations of all sorts come in. In my perception, recommendations are made in sense that what is acceptable by the members or in a consensus by the majority gets considered and gets forwarded. My recommendations can be outright trashed and I don't mind it because yes they can be only limited to my experience. It gets really hard to go on and on and debate and debate on such recommendations. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Fouad,
Most of the problems you describe are not limited to travelers from developing economies. I would really prefer not to segment the world more than is already being done; travel headaches -- such as missed check-in dates -- can happen to anyone. Bad travellers' luck does not discriminate regards to country of origin.
On 21 July 2010 19:18, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to step in to share perspectives and recommendations as a person who travels from the developing world.
Small nit, but Pakistan is not on the UN list of lesser developed countries. Compared to the US it's way behind, but its GDP/person is more than double that of ICANN host country Kenya. Everything's relative :-)
First and foremost, it is very hard to pay for air-ticket bookings on our own
According to Alan's proposal, nothing changes for those who want to let ICANN do their bookings. The proposal merely suggests some extra flexibility for those who can (and like to) manage it.
Issue 2 also implies that when we travel, we have to reschedule/allocate a lot of changes in our work plans, engagements, commitments etc and we should be on a boot-camp style or concentration camp style regime for travelling.
Careful, some people could be very offended by that statement. If it was a true concentration camp regime you might not make it to your destination -- ever. That was an extremely poor way to make a point.
As for changes in work plans, you're an ICANN volunteer leader and knew what the time demands were going to be in advance. Deal with it, just like the rest of us. Or feel free to avoid the travel, save the time and use the remote participation facilities. Sometimes those kind of conflicts happen, but that's not -- and should never be made to be -- ICANN's problem.
Recommendation 4: Eliminate Antagonist Behaviour towards Traveller's Urgent/Unavoidable Circumstances
I've always found that ICANN staff -- at this level -- are human too. They mean well, and react nicely when not yelled at. I've had and witnessed my share of panics and all have been dealt with professionally. I have never encountered what I'd considered 'antagonistic' behaviour -- there are simply too many things that can go wrong, with all travelers, to single us out for bad treatment.
Recommendation 6: ICANN should deploy an ICANN Travel Team Support Desk right near the registration desk at all ICANN meetings that should be operative from the day that ICANN staff or travelers arrive. Period!
I disagree strongly with the need for a desk. ICANN travel staff are always on-call at the conference -- on-site long before we get there -- and are easy to track down (they usually have walkie talkies and at least have their mobile phones). IMO, having a specific desk will simply irritate the many stakeholder attendees who *didn't* get their travel subsidized without really creating any extra benefit we don't already have. It also puts unreasonable mobility limits on ICANN travel staff. If there's a problem just let the nearest At-Large staffer know. That system has always worked at every conference I've attended.
The only occasional difficulty requiring a travel desk has been WRT airport-to-city transfers in some locations (Delhi comes to mind) and ICANN has generally dealt with those situations as well as could be expected. Every conference has something to teach. :-)
- Evan
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa
I made a type error in the opening of my reply and thus the following change needs to be done: "The issues do stand out in terms of developing and developed classification and that should really be ignored." The -- should-- needs to be read as :..shouldn't. Thank you. Fouad
I'm happy to book my own flights, use my credit card so long as ICANN will pay before the bill's due (and when I've done it in the past, before joining ALAC, ICANN was always quick to pay.) And being able to book a few months (2 or 3) in advance would be nice. Premium economy/upgradeable ticket: I would just prefer not "least cost" and reasonable choice of airline. The opportunity to upgrade does matter -- some of us fly a lot and it's exhausting. Airmiles and "status" in the airline club do mater: Anyone from At Large (about 90% I guess) eligible for this is going to be flying 3 times/year, often long haul. Getting even on the lowest rung of a mileage plan can help with checkin, lounges etc. Economy plus even on United is better than the alternative. Most airlines now seem to have some kind of premium economy. Expenses: happy with per diem, but I think "terminal expenses" (travel to and from home/airport) should be paid separately. Adam
Perhaps I am missing something. My proposal was that the traveller be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims.
Alan
At 21/07/2010 04:31 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
Alan
At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
At 22/07/2010 04:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
I'm happy to book my own flights, use my credit card so long as ICANN will pay before the bill's due (and when I've done it in the past, before joining ALAC, ICANN was always quick to pay.) And being able to book a few months (2 or 3) in advance would be nice.
Premium economy/upgradeable ticket: I would just prefer not "least cost" and reasonable choice of airline. The opportunity to upgrade does matter -- some of us fly a lot and it's exhausting. Airmiles and "status" in the airline club do mater: Anyone from At Large (about 90% I guess) eligible for this is going to be flying 3 times/year, often long haul. Getting even on the lowest rung of a mileage plan can help with checkin, lounges etc.
I am not sure that ICANN should need to be concerned with airline points, but frequent flyer status is another thing altogether. I have had my butt saved during irregular operations which I know would not have happened if I was not a frequent flyer with the airline alliance. And yes, even just being able to check in without huge lines, even if flying in coach, takes a lot of the pain out of travel.
Economy plus even on United is better than the alternative. Most airlines now seem to have some kind of premium economy.
Expenses: happy with per diem, but I think "terminal expenses" (travel to and from home/airport) should be paid separately.
I think that this has been addressed by the exception process, but most of us have not pressed the issue unless the costs were really large. Bottom line is that as a volunteer, you should not have to pay out-of-pocket to attend the meeting. This is a good issue to add. Alan
Adam
Perhaps I am missing something. My proposal was that the traveller be able to optionally book their own flights and that would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims.
Alan
At 21/07/2010 04:31 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel??
Alan
At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Very thoughtful contribution, Alan.
I certainly like the comment about possible slightly improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that.
Gareth
On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Very well worded, Alan.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
> To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > > Dear Kevin, > > At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you > confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel > support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps > most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results. > > Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and > I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to > fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may > address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary > responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers. > > In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to > make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of > constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the > benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds. > > I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am > sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process > were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in > ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which > should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the > same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, > but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to > keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial > amount of guaranteed business. > > I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per > group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss > later in this note. > > 0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever > air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board > members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers. > > 1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current > rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or > overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on > premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real > perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in > passenger comfort. > > 2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent > should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of > cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include > 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not > take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this > well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues > related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the > sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are > omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares > of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I > exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares > offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package > travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover > from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service > fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. > > 3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle > requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should > be far fewer of them. > > 4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based > on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled > meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous > messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with > such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early > enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first > meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this > may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early. > > 5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that > allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should > include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number > of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are > equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, > and volunteers should be offered no less. > > 6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above > the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for > a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher > level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average > burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues > for those travelers where business class is allowed. > > 7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at > substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or > 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket. > > 8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of > reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by > ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be > easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to > audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of > self-reservation privileges. > > 9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by > scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules > should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per > diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 > or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, > the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the > traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still > coming out ahead! > > 10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has > been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the > airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the > greater of $300 or 10%. > > 11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. > Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that > budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for > medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any > significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either > to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for > other events that support the mission of the group. For Board > members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis. > > 12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel > expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission > if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable". > > Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing > real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a > net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the > additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that > will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims. > > I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general > support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be > discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the > ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
A job only Alan seems capable of doing! I am on record as supporting adoption of this message as a formal ALAC statement. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Totally agree with you, Carlton Love, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A Enviada em: quarta-feira, 21 de julho de 2010 22:04 Para: Alan Greenberg; ALAC Working List Assunto: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal A job only Alan seems capable of doing! I am on record as supporting adoption of this message as a formal ALAC statement. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Dear Colleagues. Agree with Carlton in relation with the enormous work capacity of ALAN. However his comments are not fine to me at least not in every points of his work. For Instance: I follow disgusted with the existence of ALAC executive committee, meanwhile this body are not inside the ALAC bylaws. I also disgusted with their desitions in name of whole ALAC in many cases. Going directly to the point; Related proposal to put more control in the hands of travellers. I must to say that this possibilty exist already. The official travel agent is not BCD ? , or the suggestion is to have an internal ICANN office (department) which will be encharged to travel issues? . this point is not clear to me. In relation with the reasonable costs (or less price), I must to say that in the last two meetings, In wich I have traveled with my wife, the best budget (for her flight e- ticket) was given to me by BCD travel. The travel agents in my city have never offered to me a less price for her e-ticket With respect of reimbursement, this aspect is not easy in many countries (like Argentina for instance), because the taxes of hires are in many cases more expensives than the money transference itself. times of money transferences are very long and full of bureaucracy, also. this is not very funny for all Volunteers perhaps could get best price for e-ticket, but is possible to have not the money to pay for it in advance. But not all is negative. I fully support all of other points of his great work. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ALAC] RES: Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org en nombre de sylvia@internautabrasil.org Enviado: jueves, 22 de julio de 2010 03:31:21 a.m. Para: 'SAMUELS,Carlton A' (carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm); 'Alan Greenberg' (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca); 'ALAC Working List' (alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org) Totally agree with you, Carlton Love, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A Enviada em: quarta-feira, 21 de julho de 2010 22:04 Para: Alan Greenberg; ALAC Working List Assunto: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal A job only Alan seems capable of doing! I am on record as supporting adoption of this message as a formal ALAC statement. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac _________________________________________________________________ En Hotmail estamos reinventando un nuevo correo. Preparate para lo que se viene. Ver más http://www.nuevohotmail.com
At 22/07/2010 12:57 PM, carlos aguirre wrote:
Dear Colleagues.
Agree with Carlton in relation with the enormous work capacity of ALAN.
However his comments are not fine to me at least not in every points of his work.
For Instance:
I follow disgusted with the existence of ALAC executive committee, meanwhile this body are not inside the ALAC bylaws. I also disgusted with their desitions in name of whole ALAC in many cases.
This document was solely my work and was submitted as such. Since there was an ExCom meeting this week, I asked for the opinion of those on the call, but they did nothing on behalf of the ALAC.
Going directly to the point;
Related proposal to put more control in the hands of travellers. I must to say that this possibilty exist already.
The official travel agent is not BCD ? , or the suggestion is to have an internal ICANN office (department) which will be encharged to travel issues? . this point is not clear to me.
Today the travel agent is BCD. Before that it was American Express, and before the The Travel Store. My note said that they should continue to have an "official" travel agent. I said nothing about it being an internal ICANN department. A good travel agent is a skilled professional, and that is not the core business that ICANN should be in.
In relation with the reasonable costs (or less price), I must to say that in the last two meetings, In wich I have traveled with my wife, the best budget (for her flight e- ticket) was given to me by BCD travel. The travel agents in my city have never offered to me a less price for her e-ticket
That is good and I am sure that ICANN would be happy to hear that. It has not been the case with everyone. And even when BCD (or their predecessors) have arrived at a good end solution, it has often taken up a lot of volunteer and ICANN executive time.
With respect of reimbursement, this aspect is not easy in many countries (like Argentina for instance), because the taxes of hires are in many cases more expensives than the money transference itself. times of money transferences are very long and full of bureaucracy, also. this is not very funny for all
And this is a consideration that each traveler should factor in before deciding to book their own tickets.
Volunteers perhaps could get best price for e-ticket, but is possible to have not the money to pay for it in advance.
That is why Item 7 said that ICANN should be prepared to issue travel advances for this purpose.
But not all is negative. I fully support all of other points of his great work.
Thank you. Alan
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ALAC] RES: Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposalâ De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org en nombre de sylvia@internautabrasil.org Enviado: jueves, 22 de julio de 2010 03:31:21 a.m. Para: 'SAMUELS,Carlton A' (carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm); 'Alan Greenberg' (alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca); 'ALAC Working List' (alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org)
Totally agree with you, Carlton Love, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org
-----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A Enviada em: quarta-feira, 21 de julho de 2010 22:04 Para: Alan Greenberg; ALAC Working List Assunto: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
A job only Alan seems capable of doing!
I am on record as supporting adoption of this message as a formal ALAC statement.
Carlton
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac
---------- Descubrà un nuevo Hotmail: con más herramientas para una vida más práctica. Muy pronto. <http://www.nuevohotmail.com>Ver más
My limited experience with ICANN Travel support is that ICANN staff has been excellent, responsive and very helpful. But the travel agent they use is anything but. They are expensive: for what they have been charging ICANN, I could almost get an equivalent business class ticket if I purchase on my own. They are inflexible: any changes to the travel plans would incur expensive service fee (I gave up trying to change it in the end). But most importantly, they are really irresponsive: My enquires mostly went unanswered, unless I ping them a couple of times. Despite our complains numerous times, ICANN have stuck with them. I have more or less given up and hopeful for the best now. -James Seng On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement.
Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting.
Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
participants (10)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
carlos aguirre -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fouad Bajwa -
Gareth Shearman -
James Seng -
SAMUELS,Carlton A -
sylvia＠internautabrasil.org -
Thompson, Darlene